Jump to content
Stosh

Interesting topic came up....

Recommended Posts

We live in a sound bite world - say "Free Tuition" and you can get yourself lots of votes amongst a certain crowd.  The media, because they're essentially stupid, ask just one question - how will it be paid for - and think they've done there job.  Bandy about some transaction tax scheme (and basically stealing the idea from folks proposing it to pay for universal health care) and everyone moves along - fixated on free tuition and a new tax to pay for it.

 

No one ever applies any critical thinking skills to it.  No one stops to wonder why we should transfer the State's responsibility to fund their own schools to the taxpayers of all states.  No one ever asks "How will it work?"  So I ask - how will it work, just on a fundamental level?  In my state, tuition rates aren't the same across the board at public colleges.  The tuition rates at Northern Illinois University are different from the tuition rates at University of Illinois which are in turn different from the rates at Illinois State University which are in turn different from the rates at Eastern Illinois University, etc. etc. etc.  So is the federal government just going to pay for a student's tuition at different rates in the same state?  For neighboring states?  Or is the federal government going to require that states set a single tuition rate for all schools, never mind that the cost of living in Chicago is higher than the cost of living in Macomb so the public colleges in Chicago pay their faculty and staff more than the university in Macomb does? 

 

What's to prevent a state from jacking up the tuition rates to collect more federal tax dollars?  Is the federal government going to try to set the tuition rates for the state's schools?  Seems to me there is some constitutional issues there regarding the sovreignity of states.  Or is the answer that the federal government sets a number that is the tuition reimbursement which may be higher or lower than a schools tution rate - and if that's the case, so much for free tuition to the students who attend a public school where tution is $4,500 a semester and the reimbursement rate is $4,100 a semester. 

 

Ultimately, as we're led down this path, does it means that the federal government is going to have to nationalize state public schools and get the states out of that business altogether?  Seems to me that would mean the University of Alabama would then become the US University of some southern state.

 

Frankly, I think a better idea would be to put together some kind of infrastructure block grant program where the US Government will provide a state with x amount of infrastructure funds to fix roads, schools, bridges, public buildings with the requirement that the states that accept the funding budget an equal amount, above their current budgeting levels, to higher education, and start reducing the costs of tuition and other fees.

Edited by CalicoPenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one ever applies any critical thinking skills to it.  No one stops to wonder why we should transfer the State's responsibility to fund their own schools to the taxpayers of all states.  No one ever asks "How will it work?"  So I ask - how will it work, just on a fundamental level?  In my state, tuition rates aren't the same across the board at public colleges.  The tuition rates at Northern Illinois University are different from the tuition rates at University of Illinois which are in turn different from the rates at Illinois State University which are in turn different from the rates at Eastern Illinois University, etc. etc. etc.  So is the federal government just going to pay for a student's tuition at different rates in the same state? 

 

What's to prevent a state from jacking up the tuition rates to collect more federal tax dollars?  Is the federal government going to try to set the tuition rates for the state's schools?  Seems to me there is some constitutional issues there regarding the sovreignity of states.  Or is the answer that the federal government sets a number that is the tuition reimbursement which may be higher or lower than a schools tution rate - and if that's the case, so much for free tuition to the students who attend a public school where tution is $4,500 a semester and the reimbursement rate is $4,100 a semester. 

Briefly out of quarantine. Calico, most of the tuition is borrowed at interest rates likely to follow graduates for many years if it isn't paid by rich families. Tuition rates are rising not because states are raising them. On the contrary, when this state lowered state support to record low levels (10% or less) the university was forced to raise tuition to compensate - and the legislature raised concerns about the rising tuition costs in response. One of the major state institutions compensated by opening enrollment to much larger numbers (with resulting increase in failure rates) and another raised both tuition and entry standards - a gutsy move that 'paid off' it turns out. That institution has a huge applicant pool and they only accept a tiny fraction. It conforms to market forces in many ways. Unfortunately, as Beavah noted, it isn't exactly the way to spread the benefit of education to many of the best students who can't afford it. 

But back to your assertion that states raise tuition: think about the political reasons that this would NOT happen - such as angry parents who can't afford college because some legislature raised rates. Legislators just don't have that kind of 'courage'. They'd rather take the path of cutting support and then pretending to be outraged when the institutions raised the tuition. 

Over and out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Texas deregulated tuition at state schools. Tuition increases out-paced inflation by a LARGE margin. Contributions to the schools have continued to be high. Drop out rates are low. Student enrollment has increased.

 

The legislature is not happy because the colleges are making tons of money on the backs of in-state and out of state students. 200k for an undergrad degree? Not worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oklahoma is doing that now for Texas students. Big draw.

 

One Scout is bucking the family trend and going to OU (family is 4 generations Texas grads). Turmoil to say the least, but he's getting in-state tuition and he got in...was wait listed at Texas.

OU got my daughter. Got her back for a year, and now she'll work in TX. Any chance your scout will want to roll specialty steel in PA three years from now? Heck, who are we kidding? Some VA tech grad will have built a robot to do his job by then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OU got my daughter. Got her back for a year, and now she'll work in TX. Any chance your scout will want to roll specialty steel in PA three years from now? Heck, who are we kidding? Some VA tech grad will have built a robot to do his job by then.

Every is working here. Been the best place to live and work since 2003. Nearly recession proof. And you get to keep more of your money. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 On the contrary, when this state lowered state support to record low levels (10% or less) the university was forced to raise tuition to compensate - and the legislature raised concerns about the rising tuition costs in response.

 

That sounds to me like a legislature trying to have it's cake and eat it too.

 

In Illinois, though the universities are run as a public corporation with most operational control granted to the Trustees, the Trustees are appointed by the Governor with advise and consent of the State Senate, and the operations are subject to laws passed by the General Assembly.  Because of this I used a much broader concept of State - I include things like the university system and the tollway authority where boards that are not elected but are appointed by the governor/assembly.  I know the Trustee's have had to raise tuition - I know a big part of the reason for that is because the General Assembly has cut spending to the University system.  I just refuse to make it easy for the General Assembly to show outrage over the rate increases when they are just as much part of it than the University system is.  If the University system was a separate government entity (like a municipality), I'll be glad to blame them, but as it stand now, when the University raises rates, I consider that to be the State of Illinois raising rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.   "Thees ees a whonderfool cauntree"    from should Scout Patrols camp without Scoutmaster sanction to whether or not schools should have free tuition for non-resident students. 

 

Way back when, I was at Purdue U as an out-of-state student .  The state legislature got angry at the Universities for some reason, cut the budget and raised tuition for everybody, I seem to remember, by 35% in one year.  Despite my counselor's assurance that much of that increase could be handled with scholarship, I had to decide whether I would declare myself a resident of Indiana, or stay in Maryland.  Couldn't do it.  I transferred back to U of MD.   Lots more story, not worth telling here.

 

My take is that it seems that everybody (everybody!)  is expected to want a college education.  Should that be an "entitlement"?  What if one's desire does not need a college diploma?    And what happened to the cost, much less the expense , of our colleges?  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got back from a great day of rock climbing, hiking, swimming and pizza.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were no certified climbing instructors, no one had to pass a swim test, everyone paid their own way at the time of the event, all chipped in for gas.  We used a 15 passenger van....Everyone had a good time.  Everyone was safe, no one got hurt.  The kids learned about poison ivy because that was in the area where we were climbing, and they found out about a bunch of other plants on the way to the climbing rock wall. 

 

If my scouts ever want to go and so something fun like this I can suggest it to them as something that was really fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were no certified climbing instructors, no one had to pass a swim test, everyone paid their own way at the time of the event, all chipped in for gas.  We used a 15 passenger van....Everyone had a good time.  Everyone was safe, no one got hurt.  The kids learned about poison ivy because that was in the area where we were climbing, and they found out about a bunch of other plants on the way to the climbing rock wall. 

 

If my scouts ever want to go and so something fun like this I can suggest it to them as something that was really fun.

So not a scouting for event?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope.  It broke so many BSA rules it was unbelievable.  As adults we focused solely on safety, worked with the kids. minimal planning and it was like back when I was a kid doing stuff like this.  Had a nice day with the church youth group.  If anyone suggests I turn this group into a Venturing Crew I'd be the first to say no.  Everything was covered, everything was safe, the kids had a great time.  The surprising thing about it was the number of kids who had taken rock climbing in school.  They knew the ropes, the techniques, the knots, the equipment, the climb.  Afterwards they knew how to wind the ropes and secure the equipment.  Had a nice hike after the climb.  The rocks and trails are highly rated and we beat the summer crowd.  We did swim at a park beach but we had to post our own lifeguards. 

 

While we didn't get into politics, another adult and I along with three of the boys got into a pretty in-depth discussion on religion before getting back to the church.  Got in my Servant Leadership lesson too. :)  That lead to why the youth can't vote in the congregation, hold office, etc.  I come from different synod than these kids and I kinda stoked the fire a bit.  :rolleyes:

 

We did touch on PCism from a religious perspective, too...(over pizza).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So not a scouting for event?

 

 

Nope.  It broke so many BSA rules it was unbelievable.

 

I was going to say you could count the BSA violations almost by word. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I was trying to make is: with all the fun the kids had, and as safe as they all were, why is BSA so overly cautious when they are teaching safety and then don't rely on it.  They have to regulate safety until they reach the point that the boys have to visit the park in a 12 passenger van and not get out to see anything because someone might get hurt.

 

I have to admit the majority of the kids were high school aged, and those that weren't were watched over by the older kids very well....without being told..... and without having a patch on their shirt..... just because they cared about everyone else.

 

The activity was organized by an Eagle scout who was a parent of one of the kids in the group.  He has only one child and SHE didn't quality for any of the scouting programs, so he and his wife took it upon themselves to fill in the blanks. 

 

It was interesting the differences and the similarities we observed.  The Eagle got his training through BSA and I got my training through being a Emergency Rescue Technician.  I don't know what they were teaching in the high school, but everything the youth were doing did make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I was trying to make is: with all the fun the kids had, and as safe as they all were, why is BSA so overly cautious when they are teaching safety and then don't rely on it.  They have to regulate safety until they reach the point that the boys have to visit the park in a 12 passenger van and not get out to see anything because someone might get hurt.

 

 

You know I am no supporter of the overzealous bureaucracy that is BSA, but I will play Devil's advocate.

  • 15 Passenger Van Rule: Recent issues with the maintenance and safety records of some of these vehicles has called in to question the efficacy of using certain models.
  • Climbing Instruction & Training: As a climber I have seen far too many accidents from people who think they know their knots and technique.
  • First Aid: Advanced first aid is very important to know. Requiring this on what may be deemed "high adventure" or high risk activities helps to ensure that *if* there is an accident, the first responder is someone with a bit more training than basic first aid.
  • Safe Swim/Afloat Training: How many times do we see even trained adults violate the basic rules of safety in the water? With any group size this is a good idea.
  • Weather Training: Far too many people simply cannot read the weather anymore without an app to tell them what's happening. Knowing how to read the skies can make the difference between being safe and a very dangerous situation.

Now, if they use super soakers are giant water balloons on their trip, who care, right? But these other things are there to prevent issues. The training is BSA's way of making sure those in charge at least have exposure to this training. Whether they use it is another story.

 

Gotta remember, @@Stosh, not everyone are training geeks like we are. Most boat owners have the basic required training if that. They have no idea how to operate their craft well, let alone the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×